04 February 2018 12:25 AM

A sad loner is jailed. But the real ‘terror threat’ is still roaming our streets

This is Peter Hitchens's Mail on Sunday column

It is astonishing how we cannot see what is in front of our noses when we are blinded by dogma. We cannot, for instance, see that Darren Osborne, the mosque van killer jailed on Friday, is an unhinged, chaotic nobody, his mind spinning with drugs and drink, who knows and cares as much about politics as I know about football.

More than a dozen times I have pointed out here that almost all rampage killers, all over the world, have one thing in common – the use of mind-altering drugs. I am not trying to exonerate them. On the contrary. But I am trying to prevent these things happening in future by being much tougher on illegal drugs, and much more cautious with legal prescriptions.

Sometimes it is cannabis. Sometimes it is steroids. Sometimes it is prescription ‘antidepressants’ – themselves a scandal waiting to be exposed and understood.

But it’s always there. I look and I find it. Any number of American and European school and campus massacres, the Charlie Hebdo murders, the Japanese care home knife killings, the Nice truck massacre, Anders Breivik, the Lee Rigby murder, the Westminster van killer. These and many more we know for certain. In many other cases we don’t know only because the authorities have never bothered to find out.

These killings are a subset of violent crime, but they are unusually closely studied, which is how we know. My guess is that a huge amount of violent crime is also committed by people who have derailed their sanity by taking mind-altering drugs. But the authorities are even less interested in that.

Usually I am attacked for saying this by powerful groups. I understand why. The Security Lobby’s huge budgets and well-funded think-tanks depend on the belief that we are menaced by a vast spider’s web of Islamist terrorism, controlled from some cave in the Middle East by a turbaned mastermind. No wonder they hate it when I point out that ‘Islamist’ terror is usually carried out by pathetic, lonely petty criminals with marijuana habits.

The Big Dope Lobby are on the brink of legalising marijuana and making billions from it. They are terrified that the public will notice that cannabis is in fact a deeply dangerous drug that should stay illegal. It could cost them a hoped-for fortune.

And the anti-American BBC snobs who think America’s problems arise solely from legal gun ownership close their minds to this obvious fact: the USA has always had legal guns, but these massacres are new. What else is new? Mass use of mind-altering drugs, legal and illegal, that’s what’s new. And it’s always present in these massacres. But when it comes to Darren Osborne, surely there’s no serious lobby that wants to believe this pathetic drifter was a political actor, when the truth is so much more useful? Is there? As in the case of the Leytonstone knifeman, Osborne was just trying to dignify his horrible little life by parroting grandiose political views he didn’t understand. Doctors know this is common.

Osborne was, of course, a serious heavy drinker. But that wasn’t all. He had a lengthy criminal record including battering a drinking companion with a bicycle lock (for which he was jailed), beating his partner and twice assaulting police officers. He had been living rough, mostly in a squalid tent pitched in some undergrowth, for six months before his crime. He was an angry and violent man who got thrown out of pubs and got into fights. He had tried to drown himself.

His sister Nicola said that he was taking ‘antidepressants’ at the time of his crime and – this is, in my view, the real scandal – ‘He asked to be taken into care and wanted to be sectioned but the authorities wouldn’t do it.’

In court, much like the similarly unhinged killer of MP Jo Cox, his behaviour was not sane.

I suspect his absurd not guilty plea had to be taken seriously because the authorities were so keen to classify his crime as political, and so didn’t want him sent to a secure hospital, though I suspect he will end up in one.

At one point in the trial he made the ridiculous claim that he had not even been driving the van in which he killed Makram Ali, saying that the driver had been ‘a guy called Dave’. The claim was so absurd that the prosecutor asked him if Dave’s surname was ‘Unicorn’. No sane person, on trial for his liberty, would have behaved in such a fashion, or treated a murder trial with such contempt. Amid all the portentous blethers about ‘radicalisation’, the police admitted: ‘We have found no evidence that Osborne acted other than alone.’

That is because there is no such evidence. But there is evidence that he acted under the influence of mind-altering drugs. And it is high time that an inquiry was held into the strong correlation between such drugs and violent crime.

Why would it be better to deceive ourselves that such people are serious political actors?

***

Help... I'm a tiny person trapped in a hippy fantasy!

What could have been a really clever, witty and intelligent film, Downsizing is completely spoiled by the obsession with global warming and the supposed doom of the planet.

The plot, based on the idea that scientists find a way of shrinking humans, zeroes in on the interesting possibility that if you are five inches tall, but your savings stay the same size as they were, you can suddenly afford a much more comfortable, luxurious life.

But it also explores the blood-freezing thought that cynical despots could take revenge on their opponents by miniaturising them and turning them into a tiny underclass, skivvying for super-rich American Tom Thumbs.The scene is set for a fascinating drama. But no, suddenly it all gets mixed up with the melting icecaps, and wanders off into a sort of hippy fantasy which I, for one, could not understand.

I don’t know how the makers would have got away with this if Warmism wasn’t the religion of the modern media classes.

***

There are loud complaints from the authorities that faith schools are teaching extremism. But isn’t that what they are supposed to do, fill the minds of the young with extreme ideas such as ‘love thy neighbour as thyself’, ‘honour thy father and thy mother’ and ‘those whom God hath joined together, let no man put asunder’ – all deeply subversive of the selfish, neglectful, iPhone and divorce society in which we live?

***

The German ambassador, Peter Ammon, complains about ‘the image of Britain standing alone in the Second World War against German domination’. It’s quite true we fall back too much on this noble but distant moment. But can’t he see that a German ambassador simply cannot say this, as long as one person still lives who fought against the Third Reich, or was bombed or starved or imprisoned or otherwise harmed by it? Even when they have gone, it may still be too soon.

********

I had been working on a friendly, peacemaking letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury, my opponent in the long struggle to clear the name of the great Bishop George Bell. But I ripped it up last week when the C of E, just before its General Synod discusses the Bell case next week, claimed to have fresh ‘information’.

The implication was that there is new evidence against Bishop Bell. But is there really? The C of E will not answer any questions about it, saying it is ‘confidential’. If it’s so confidential, why release it at all? I thought Alastair Campbell was ruthless, but he’s got nothing on Justin Welby.

If you want to comment on Peter Hitchens, click on Comments and scroll down

Share this article:

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

@ California Bill ""Do the reseach"

No Bill, it is you who must do more research if you want to present any significant evidence that cannabis is what motivates these people to become rampage killers. Where is your hard evidence of this?.Millions of people around the world have used cannabis without jumping into a van and careering into pedestrians on a bridge, flying planes into skyscrapers, heading into the grounds of Westminster brandishing a knife or blowing up little children at a music concert. These are political actions designed to cause terror with a religious / political goal, not the actions of a confused cannabis addict, who probably cares more about scraping together enough for his next bag of weed than planning profound political acts that have in may ways changed the world, as in 9/11. Maybe if you do more research you will realise that after I400 years of jihad with an estimated total of 270 million deaths the evidence is crystal clear. I now compare that to the handful of rampage killings you have left once subtracting any perpetrated by militant Islamists and you are probably par for the course, a few crazed individuals affected by many factors or just inherently evil. Using your personal prejudices against drugs is not in my mind a substitute for scientifical fact, historical fact or logic. Maybe recent individuals from this age old historical cult have used this drug but this is a minor detail in the life of political Islam. Maybe for other rampage killings your case may be more substantial but you have all your work still ahead of you before you can say that cannabis or drugs was the reason for any of these massacres.

@Martin
My concern, as with PH, regards the mental distortions of mind-altering drugs that might eventually lead some individuals to commit violent acts. Whether or not Bush or Blair are inherently evil as far as I am concerned is a completely irrelevant topic.

Many about the world, thanks in large part to IT, are starting to notice a trend. And that is that so many of the murderous sociopaths are using mind-altering drugs. Do the research: Manson, Bundy, Huntsman, Tsarnaev, McVeigh, Mateen, etc. Myriads of them using drugs. Are they simply attracted to drugs, or the BIG QUESTION all of society should be asking, "Are the mind-altering drugs they use indeed altering their minds?" It's an obvious no-brainer that frustratingly, perhaps by design, is avoided by those who SHOULD be inquiring.

So if gun homicides are dropping how does this tie in wth your theory that the West is becoming overrun by rampaging cannabis killers? I think it's pretty much common sense to realise that if guns are readily accessible in a society for unstable people then these events are guaranteed to be much more prevalent. As for Bush and Blair being rampage killers, perhaps we should ask PH for his view, as he appears to be the authority on this topic. I believe he shares the same disgust for Blair as I do but I think we might differ slightly in that he thinks Blair was a bit of a dim wit with awful policies. My view is that this man is an evil, callous and slippery individual who is in many respects a mass killer that signed the death warrants of hundreds of thousands of people, mostly innocent civilians or service personnel. If you want to dress it up as an act of war then you have to bear in mind this was an illegal act with reason still unknown? Much like the mass killers that Bill is pontificating over here as he reclines in his Lazyboy chair, there seems no justifiable reason for their actions. Just because you wear a suit and have a nice salary doesn't mean you aren't capable of evil, but hey the real criminals often get Immunity.

Regarding shootings in the US, before making correlations, it's important to realize that gun ownership has been steadily rising in recent years (especially under Obama), but actual gun homicides have been dropping!

Some selective denial in non-designation there, surely ... and don't forget that the USA has historically also wrought extensive "collateral damage" in countries other than those it officially attacked (for instance, Laos).
Is a comparatively small massacre a 'rampage killing', whereas military devastation of entire countries and their populations is a 'humanitarian intervention'?
Bush and Blair were part of an ongoing pattern -- best add Clinton, Obama, Trump, Cameron and May to the "recent" US/UK rampage-killers list.
How else could their fronting of blatant wars of aggression be described?

*** The inspiration for both of those wars derived from the spread of terrorism, and most noteworthy 9/11. The rationale is either we fight that madness on their turf, or we let it infiltrate our western society.***

Who sponsored Islamic militants in Afghanistan, deliberately lied about WMD in Iraq, shipped jihadists into the Balkans, bombed terrorists and gangsters into power in Libya, and in all ways backed (still backs) ultra-sectarian terrorist invaders in Syria?
A country genuinely associated with 9/11 is Saudi Arabia ... to which the USA and UK supply a vast quantity of armaments ... a theocracy which has sponsored mosques and preachers to promote its particular version of militant Islam throughout Europe and Asia.
Incidentally, which country's leader awarded himself (and his successors) the right to have anyone killed, any time, anywhere in the world, regardless of legalities?

I never made the argument that Bush and Blair were rampage killers, I said ' some might classify the actions of Bush and Blair' - not 'I classify'. Yet if you are talking about men in the US army then what is the difference between their actions and the actions of Bush and Blair? That's the whole reason they were there isn't it Bill? Or did they just fly over there because they were high on cannabis? Or supposedly to stop the 'spread of terror on our own turf'. Nice job they did of that - the military interventions that the US and British liberal governments have undertaken in the Middle East have increased the risk of terror on home soil - a hundred times over. You are now blaming the 9/11 attacks on cannabis - it's a grand claim but I think you'll find that these men were products of Osama Bin Laden's Al Queda brainwashing terror group and cult of death - when in the West they did as Westerners do to fit in. This is permitted in Islam as long as the end goal is achieved. Do you honestly believe that if you stopped the use of cannabis or eradicated this plant from the world these terror attacks would stop? I'm afraid that history proves otherwise, it's nothing but fantasy.

Another day, another mass.killing in the US. I trust you have seen the footage in light of your comment on US troops. This is exactly what I'm saying, people who glorify in the use of weapons with easy access to them and there in lies the explanation for frequent shooting massacres in the US. What drives the killer - who knows? Does it matter? If someone has the will to kill who can stop them? If they don't have access to guns they can buy a kitchen knife or as we've seen hire a van. However, the typical American idea that we fight fire with fire and everyone needs a gun, or the ludicrous proposal that they now arm teachers doesn't seem to me to be the way forward. Why do any of these.people need guns? They should all be stripped of their weapons. But that is the American way, you've got a nuclear weapon so we'll get a bigger one. Trump says it's mental health knowing his campaign was backed heavily by the guns lobby. I don't want to make excuses for any of these.peolle, whether it's easy access to guns, drugs, the will of Allah or any other attempt to abdicate personal responsibility and the simple human instinct to know right from wrong. As far as I'm concerned, anyone who kills another human is not fit to ever walk among their fellow humans again. The majority of these people know exactly what they are doing and they do it because they are evil, wicked and take pleasure in making others suffer.

@Martin
No offense, and though many are bitter about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, suggesting GWB and Blair are rampage killers is a ridiculous argument.
The inspiration for both of those wars derived from the spread of terrorism, and most noteworthy 9/11. The rationale is either we fight that madness on their turf, or we let it infiltrate our western society.
Oddly and not surprising, the 9/11 terrorists used cannabis. Shouldn't that bother anybody, or shall we just give marijuana a free pass and just pretend that all is fine and dandy with putting a variety of toxic cannabinoids into the brain?

-"Have either of you heard of the atrocities committed by some soldiers of the Stryker Combat Brigade in Afghanistan several years ago? A group of renegade soldiers set out to murder and mutilate unarmed civilians. Basically in this sad case, Americans were the terrorists and innocent Afghans were the victims."- [etc]

This particular example was unknown to me, though not unprecedented in its details being all to similar to equally appalling reports from previous conflicts, every ill-advised element of which compounded each disaster, and the following should not be read as arguing against the case made.

According to the Alan Page Fiske and Tage Rai thesis on "Moral Motivations for Mayhem...Hurting and Killing to Create, Sustain, End and Honor Social Relationships" the common feature is self-righteousness and coined the term "Virtuous Violence".

Additional to all of which there is a further component to take into consideration described in some detail in a book by Malcolm Gladwell - 'Blink' - quoting Dave Grossman, a former army lieutenant colonel and the author of 'On Killing', who argues:

"the optimal state of “arousal”—the range in which stress improves performance—is when our heart rate is between 115 and 145 beats per minute. ... Most of us, under pressure, get too aroused, and past a certain point, our bodies begin shutting down so many sources of information that we start to become useless.

“After 145,” Grossman says, “bad things begin to happen. Complex motor skills start to break down. Doing something with one hand and not the other becomes very difficult. . . . At 175, we begin to see an absolute breakdown of cognitive processing. . . The forebrain shuts down, and the mid-brain—the part of your brain that is the same as your dog’s (all mammals have that part of the brain)—reaches up and hijacks the forebrain. Have you ever tried to have a discussion with an angry or frightened human being? You can’t do it. . . . You might as well try to argue with your dog.”

@Martin
I think you understand my viewpoint. That is, of course there is likely a constellation of factors that lead to this homicidal pathology. We agree. Most often users of cannabis are healthy physically and mentally, and thus they are unlikely to become deranged, as may be the case in Colorado.

My point with the renegade brigade is exactly as you say, just like their counterparts in the Middle East- those who already possess the necessary underlying conditions such as a proclivity for violence, and that may come from heredity as well as trauma or living in harsh circumstances. It's this later subset of cannabis abusers that deserve our attention.

Earlier I used the "fight at the bar" analogy, you may have read? Basically, there are folks who may have a proclivity for anger and violence, but most often in decent society, their conscience constrains their behavior while sober. However, add some drinking into the mix, and those folks tend to lose their inhibitions and engage in fighting.

The alcohol did not cause them to fight; it simply provided for the necessary state of mind to do so. Some will fight even when sober, plus not all who drink fight, but still use of alcohol drastically increases the probability.

Similarly with cannabis, my point is that some vulnerable individuals who do indulge may develop a chronic condition of derangement where they also begin losing their empathy for life and inhibition. The distinction is that the effects of alcohol for such fighting conditions are more or less temporary, whereas the mental derangement from cannabis is more likely to be permanent. So they may be stoned on cannabis and be perfectly peaceful most of the course of their habits, but eventually, even when sober, they commit violent acts of vengeance.

"Time and time again, all the big red arrows are pointing at cannabis"

If we're bringing military events into the equation I suppose some might classify the actions of Bush and Blair as rampage killers, possibly among the biggest of all time - shock and awe, remember that one? The red arrows were in the air that day heading for cities with civilian targets. The only red dots here were on their radars and pointing directly at targets full of innocent people. So were these the actions of secret cannabis addicts too, or were they the actions of fervent politicians out for revenge, oil, ideological advancement or the actions of ego maniacs with a desire to leave a legacy in which they would cement their names in history forever. Well, they certainly achieved the last option, for all the wrong reasons.

@ Bill who asks, "Did the prolific use of mind-altering hashish distort their minds to such a degree they themselves became terrorists?"

Interesting to hear about this renegade platoon. You talk about homicidal psychopaths and ask, "Now there are five together. What are the odds". Well I would suggest more favourable in the military than if you selected five members of the public. Why? Because these people are often damaged by what they see in war, they are often angry young men who are sent out to kill, they often have a fascination with guns and weaponry with itchy trigger fingers ready to test their new gadgets. What's more, within a group of those with a similar mindset they probably became emboldened or influenced by other members. Mix that in with the use of alcohol, mind-altering drugs, the panic and confusion of war, a belief that 'radical' Christianity must prevail over 'radical Islam' and other prejudices, then I would slash your odds down significantly. As I said, these cases often have multiple causes, that is often why there is much disagreement, especially when someone takes one of the factors and claims this is the only real true cause which explains all of these mass murders or atrocities.

Have either of you heard of the atrocities committed by some soldiers of the Stryker Combat Brigade in Afghanistan several years ago? A group of renegade soldiers set out to murder and mutilate unarmed civilians. Basically in this sad case, Americans were the terrorists and innocent Afghans were the victims.

The curious thing is this group of Americans used hashish regularly while in Afghanistan. Likely not uncommon among soldiers, but still one must wonder if the dire circumstances in a hostile environment in combination with mind-altering drugs prompted them to commit the murders- perhaps also a kind of fanaticism of sorts.

What's more is it's hard to believe that five individuals just happened to be selected by the military to be together in a platoon, and they were all homicidal sociopaths. You would think the selection process of the military would get some rather level headed recruits to begin with. Now there are five together. What are the odds? Let's say one in a million from general society is destined to be a murderous sociopath. So by simple probability alone that ALL five are sociopaths just happen to be in the same unit, the odds are one in a million to the fifth power, or 1/ 10 ^30 (one in ten to the thirtieth power), about the number of molecules on earth. (Well, the math gets more complicated because the group was actually about twelve, but you get the idea.)

And here's a description: "the killings were committed essentially for sport by soldiers who had a fondness for hashish and alcohol"

So how does this figure? These guys are not members of radical Islam, but instead they are presumably of Christian faith, yet the roles are completely reversed. Would anybody in their right mind call this terrorist act "radical Christianity"?

Bizarre and weird. So now one must wonder: Did the prolific use of mind-altering hashish distort their minds to such a degree they themselves became terrorists?
Time and time again, all the big red arrows are pointing at cannabis.

In response to C. Morrison, you might have a point that Western, so-called liberal regimes have allied with Islamist extremists, such as in Syria with Al Nusra and of course the unholy alliance with Saudi Arabia where many of the real extremists have come from. Whether there is a deliberate policy of being soft on drugs and they are therefore using them to do their dirty work I'm not so sure. It would be a very random, hit and miss policy which could easily backfire, quite literally in their faces, if we examine the proposed plot to assassinate Theresa May recently, not to mention an attacker entering the grounds of Parliament. Whether it's more of a general, indirect policy aimed at diverting blame, that could be more plausible.

In reply to BIll, yes of course we should ask questions as Mr. Hitchens has done, and yes of course some of these mass killings are related to drug use by the offenders but please let's not pretend that militant Islam is not a serious problems in its own right and let's not have completely unproven, sweeping claims about drug use being the driving force behind nearly all mass murderers.

-"But how about a Hindu in Houston who smoked marijuana, developed an observed personality change and then went on a shooting spree at a local mall. Should we attribute that incident to say, "radical Hinduism"?"-

As is implied, the conditions are not mutually exclusive.

The creation of any assumed in-group identity of itself dehumanises other people collectively as less favoured outsiders.

-"Now of course, cannabis is not necessary or sufficient to prompt violent behavior, we ALL understand that. Yet we are wondering if the marijuana (cannabis/ hashish) that is so commonly abused by these sociopaths might be what is 'hardening' their fanaticism, without which some of these atrocities may never have occured."-

As a disinhibitor, which supposedly is its purpose.

-"We do know from extensive scientific research that cannabis can induce schizophrenia and other mental health issues, and it can certainly exacerbate underlying conditions. And surely you know individuals who used cannabis and underwent personality changes?"-

I know no cannabis users but on a previous thread on this topic - in April 2016 - I posted the following:

"Drug misuse is not a disease, it is a decision, like the decision to step out in front of a moving car. You would call that not a disease but an error of judgement. When a bunch of people begin to do it, it is a social error, a life-style. In this particular life-style the motto is 'Be happy now because tomorrow you are dying,' but the dying begins almost at once, and the happiness is a memory. ... I loved them all. Here is the list, to whom I dedicate my love:

I have been watching the story of James Bulger, the toddler killed.by two ten year.old boys. I know this is far from a mass killing and in most aspects unrelated here but in many ways this.proves the fact that sometimes we can search for logical answers to these questions but there are none, except to conclude that every now and then an.evil.force is.present in some individuals. You see the reaction of grown men trying to lynch mob the van carrying these ten years olds to the cell. This was a moment for many when they realised that evil does exist. We can look for answers, blame drugs, religion, movies, bad parenting, mental disorder and so on but sometimes you cannot find the rationale. It can only be defined in how these brutal actions are incomprehensible to the normal human mind. In some of these mass killings, the same evil force, whatever its origin, is also present.

In summary, tackling drug use is a complex problem. There are two stages in which there is the rebellious teenager who foolishly, under pressure from friends and mislead.by popular culture tries these substances. At this stage,.the.lockjng up / deterrent policy could work but is hard to enforce,.and if it is then these persons will no doubt seek other vices. But once it goes.passed this stage and people become addicted to drugs this method is only a response that treats the symptom, it is not the cure. Most people who tend to become addicted to drugs long term are unresponsive to such measures and the reason they continue is that other issues around their mental health have not been addressed. Repressing the symptom does not lead to a cure, it can only create side -effects. Unless you find the cure you will always be playing catch up and will never truly tackle the underlying problem.of drug use.

If people are really serious about tackling the use of cannabis and similar drugs they should look at why.people.use these substances. One way to tackle it of course is to try and stop the supply, lock people up but it hasn't worked. And if you do this you these people will simply turn to other substances, even more dangerous legal highs or acts of violence, self harm and pent up anger. People, most often young men who feel alienated, are using it as a coping mechanism and to mask their emotions because they cannot deal with them, not realising that the use of thee drugs will only accelerate the anxieties they wish they could alleviate. If the government gave some thought to the root cause and invested in mental health support and finding a purpose for these.people by trying to get them into jobs, sport or anything more productive, and make them a valued member of society, as well.as providing better information about the dangers of cannabis use I believe you would see a rapid reduction in the use of cannabis.

You previously said "hashish, the most potent form of cannabis". This is incorrect. The way I understand it is there are three main types of cannabis which are skunk, bud and hash. Within these groups there are different sub strands, such as pollen and the most potent form of cannabis Super Skunk. Hashish is solid resin which often must be burnt and crumbled into a joint. Skunk is the green,.more potent form which can simply be broken or grinded into a joint and resembles a plant. Unless you are talking about Ice-o-later which is a much more potent form of hash made in a different way to get a much more concentrated resin, skunk is the stronger form. I have no time for cannabis. It is wrongly thought of by many as harmless. cool and the in thing. I believe it effects most who smoke it but the main effect is to cause minor paranoia and a general loss of motivation and care-free attitude in an individual. In certain cases, it manifests as schizophrenia or severe mental derangement. But if we are going to analyse regions, such as the Middle East, and pretend the problem of militant Islam stems entirely from cannabis use, why not look at Amsterdam, a place where they have coffee shops on every corner and hand out menus with a selection of ultra strong weed. Yet how many mass killings have occurred in Amsterdam? If what you are saying is true, surely this city would be overrun by mass shootings, stabbings and attempted terror attacks but the city seems to be a fairly peaceful one in general. I am in no way condoning the use of cannabis but I believe the main problem is that especially in the West or UK where it is classed as cool, an idea exported mainly from the US hip hop / hippy / movie culture the people who use it are using very strong versions of it within hectic lifestyles which leaves them confused and agitated. Traditionally, Rastafarians smoked cannabis because it suited their relaxed lifestyle and allowed them to meditate, which in some ways could have positive effects on their being. The reckless way people use cannabis now and in such strong doses can only spell disaster for many but to link this back to almost all mass.killers is to misunderstand not only the general effect the drug but also that there must be an underlying ideology in most of these cases, it's rarely a zero sum game. Whereas, the ideology must almost always be present at some.level, the use of drugs is not a prerequisite.

Martin | 11 February 2018 at 03:18 PM :
*** There are different factors at play, there is no one fits all profile of a mass killer but I believe that where militant Islam is concerned the ideology is the driving force. Drug use can of cause be implicated but to suggest that 'almost all' mass.killers have to take mind altering drugs is just silly.***

Which raises a question about certain non-Islamic sponsors of vicious jihadists. Have mainstream western politicians, media-persons, NGO personnel and administrators who arm, train, fund, deploy and intensively propagandise on behalf of the aforementioned religious extremists in order to devastate countries such as Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria (plus the Serbian province of Kosovo) and kill or maim vast numbers of people therein, been turned into war criminals by drug abuse?
Or is it just their nature....

Posted by: David Taylor | 12 February 2018 at 11:33 AM
*William .
No , it is clear that the authorities will not section you if you ask them to do so .*

I repeat I used the term 'sectioned' as it had been used in the author's text.
(‘He asked to be taken into care and wanted to be sectioned but the authorities wouldn’t do it.’)
His (Osbourne’s) errant behaviour was known to many people and there were warning signs which if reported would have seen him taken out of circulation.

As for .*ramming into a crowd of pedestrians , in particular that actual event , which is not disputed is it ?*
I accept the vehicle may have ran into people – (who, and how many is the question). The eye witness reports range from 2, 4, 6, 8 people under the van, 3 people in the van, van driven at high speed- see the video.

Where is the CCTV footage from the area of the incident where there MUST have been CCTV cameras?
*…what information do you have that is not available to the rest of us ?*

I think there are a lot of people out there who were in the area and actually at the scene who know, saw or even recorded the incident and as you say ‘ have information which is not available to the rest of us.’

I remain very dubious about the whole reportage and actual truth of the incident (even political experts such as Dianne Abbot said with certainty that 100's died in the Grenfell Tower fire) but could be convinced if the footage from the other side/ angles is released.

Let's approach this from another angle. Imagine some commonly used substance that individuals consume or that is spread into the environment, like tobacco or say the mercury associated with the "Madhatters" many years ago.

Then some people notice health problems associated with those toxic substances. But nobody can definitively prove that one causes the other. The science is just not there yet. It's tough.

So what do you do? Just ignore it and pretend all is fine. Or do you ask questions? Of course now we can ALL agree that those substances are indeed health hazards. So why not question the mental health harms of mind-altering drugs such as cannabis? What do we have to lose? Inquiry should be desirable and logical, yet for some reason, this concern receives tremendous resistance.

We do know from extensive scientific research that cannabis can induce schizophrenia and other mental health issues, and it can certainly exacerbate underlying conditions. And surely you know individuals who used cannabis and underwent personality changes?

And we do know that cannabis use seems often to be corrected with vicious, senseless crime all about the world. In fact the connection runs the whole gamut, from religiously motivated folks such as radical Islam, all the way to those with absolutely no connection to Islam whatsoever. They just go on killing sprees for any kind of reason. Then society tries to search for motives, and then makes conclusions. Perhaps it gives us peace of mind?

Nonetheless, there are folks such as the Tsarnaevs who blew up the Boston Marathon. Yet, they seem to have some kind of sketchy connection to Islam, maybe, but we do know there was daily use of marijuana. Then there's Dylan Roof who despicably committed the massacre at the Charleston Baptist Church. Yes, racism was the motive, but note also he abused marijuana and cocaine daily. But how about a Hindu in Houston who smoked marijuana, developed an observed personality change and then went on a shooting spree at a local mall. Should we attribute that incident to say, "radical Hinduism"?

There are thousands upon thousands of these homicidal sociopaths, and regardless of what their religions are or what we think their motives are, many of them have one thing in common. They abuse drugs, specifically marijuana!

Now of course, cannabis is not necessary or sufficient to prompt violent behavior, we ALL understand that. Yet we are wondering if the marijuana (cannabis/ hashish) that is so commonly abused by these sociopaths might be what is 'hardening' their fanaticism, without which some of these atrocities may never have occured.

-"No doubt Islam itself plays a role for their antipathy to the West, but often that anger is directed at rival factions which indicates there may be other factors. They are simply nuts, and very likely, if you have any inkling of PH's thesis as well as many posters and readers on this board, there is ample evidence to suggest that at least some if not most of the nonsensical violence in the Middle East might be derived from cannabis induced mental illness."- Posted by: CaliforniaBill | 10 February 2018 at 06:51 PM

William .
No , it is clear that the authorities will not section you if you ask them to do so .
If a person can ask , they are capable of seeking help for yourself through a Doctor , this might however lead a person to anti depressant prescription , which seems to be on the rise .

Why do you think there is more to Darren Osbournes deliberate act of ramming into a crowd of pedestrians , in particular that actual event , which is not disputed is it ? not the weeks leading up to it , what information do you have that is not available to the rest of us ?

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear on this weblog until the moderator has approved them. They must not exceed 500 words. Web links cannot be accepted, and may mean your whole comment is not published.